NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
URT OF APPEAL
C
FIRST CIRCUI
0 CA 1877
20
RONNIE ACOSTA R
BERT CHAMBERLAIN AND
BONNIE M
NTGOMERY
VERSUS
PARISH OF I
AFOURCHE
Judgment Rendered
N
on
ED FROM T
APPEAL
iE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL UISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF I
AFDURCHE
STATE OF LUUISIANA
CKCT Nt1MBETi 108333 DIVISI4N D
DC
THE HONORABLE ASHI
Y BRUCE SIMPSON Jl1DGE
J Marvin
Attorney for PlaintiffsiAppellants
3aton
Ronnie Acosta a
k Ronald Acosta
Montgomery
e Louisiana
Rou
Robert Chamberlain Bonnie Montgomery
Ann Acosta Gail Chamberlain
Terry Landry Christina Landry Ben
Bowles Jessalyn Bowles Huey Shaheen
Cherie Shaheen Brian Hayes Melissa
Hayes William James f
eidi James Lyle
Trabeaux Shirleen Trabeaux Patrick M
Wiley Jr Bruce Braud Dana Braud Lipton
Danos Loretta Danos Dale Ray Patsy Ray
Joey Trainer Hannah Trainer Shane
Thibodaux Karen Thibodaux Gwen
Owens and Danielle Trosclair
Carlton J Cheramie
Attorneys for Defendant
AppelleE
Andrea Cheramie Stentz
Parish of Lafourche
Cut O
f Louisiana
EFO
B
E WHIPPLE McD4NALD AND McCLENDON JJ
r
r
L
ti
S
n cu
C
l
v j rC
nor J
M
n
A
This appeal is from ax acCion in district court regardin the dedication and
nance of a suk
tc
maiz
division street or the followin reasons we affirm
On March 2b 1979 Antill Subdivision was created by an Ac
t of Yartition in
Lafourche Parish and the map of tlie subdivision was r
corded with the Lafourche
Parish Clerk of Court
Th Act ok Partition formally dedicated the street Antill
riv known on said subdivision plan to public use unto and in favor of the
I
Palice Jury of th Parish of Lafourch the inhabitants af the parish of Lafourch
and to tl
e public in general as a free and public street
Antill Drive is an unimprov
d dead
end street that is open for public use and
has been used
as
a
public
street since
1979
On September 13 l97 Local
Ordinanc Number 124Q was passed unaninlously providing for the minimum
requirements for the construction of subdivision streets accepted into the Parish
Road System Antill Drive was not accepted into th Parisll Road Syst
m
On August S 2000 the Iaafourche Parish Council ent
d into a Cooperative
r
Endeavor lgreement with the residents of Antill Subdivision to assist the
esidents in the maintenance ofi Antill UrivE
and to provide such material and
services as may be needed ta properly upgrade and maintain these str
ets
Accordin to the petitiol
ers the Parisll has not complied with this agreem
nt
In 2008 a suit for declaratory judgment was filed against the Parish of
Lafourch askin the district court to declare that 1 Antill Drive is a public
et which is owned by I
st
afourche Parish or over wl
ich Lafourch Parish has a
servitude of public use 2 the Lafourche Parish Couticil was actin within its
authority when it adopted Rcsolution No Q
091 and acknowledged ownership by
We note that the appeflants brief subntits that the Agreement was bctween ihe Parish and the residents
the ngree
ent sCated that it was with the residents of Antill Urive
r
Ubviously residents oi
Airtill Urive are residents c7f
tl7e subdivision but the subdivision may have other
of Antiill Subdivision
residenls that do not live on Antill Drive
z
The resc
lution also dealt witl7 two other streets ihat are ot involved in this Iiti
n
atic
2
e parish over Antill Drive 3 Caafourche Parish has a legal obli
tl
ation to maintain
Antill Drive 4 t
Cooperative
Endeavor
d
n
Agreement si
on
August
2000
between the Lafourche Parish Council and the residents of Antill Subdivision is a
al and bindin contract 5 Lafourche Parish is legally obligated to fulf 11 the
le
rms of the A
t
reement and G all costs of this suit are to be paid by the Parish
Several xceptions were fil
d and adjudicated by the district court An answer and
reconventional demand was filed by Lafourch Parish in March 2009
Several procedural issues were addressed that are not relevant to th appeal
in this matter
Ultimately a motion for summary jud
ment was heard The court
issued written reasons on May 27 2Q1 the same day that it rendered and signed a
f nal
Based on its findings the court did no address whether the
judgment
Lafoui Parish Counc
il acted within its authority when it adopted Resolution
No 00
091 I
he court ruled that 1 Lafourche Parish Counci L has a s
rvitude of
passage for public use over Antill Drive 2 the parish is not obligated to expend
public
money
to
maintain
Antill
Drive and 3 the C
operative Endeavor
greernent for thc improvement a
l
ad maintenance o Antill Drive is null and void
as it applied to the residents of Antill Drive
This appeal was fiiled alle
ing three assignments of error 1 the trial court
rred ia ruling that Lafourche Parish has a servitude of passage over Antill Drive
r than ruling that the parish owns the street 2 th trial court erred in ruling
rath
that the parish is not abligated to expend public money to maintain Antill Drive
atld 3 the trial court rred in ruling that the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement
between the parish and the residents of Antill Drive is null and void
he appellai
I
ts correctly note the four inodes of dedication of roads or streets
t
public
us
They argue that the parish eith
r through dedication or under th
Cooperative Endeavor Agreement is obligated to maintain Antill Drive
3
he district court issued extensive written
carefully
error
reviewed them
as we
reasons
for its
ruling We have
cord in this matter
have the entit
e r
s
of aw in the district court
We find no
s are not manifestly
ruling Th factual findin
erroneous as they would have to be to allow this court to revers them See Pierce
v State Offr
ce of the Legislcztive Audito 2007
0230 La App 1 Cir 2
08 9
8
4
2d 61 writ deni
So
d 2008
0542 La 08
25 978 So
4
2d 369 In f
act the district
s
court
reasons
indicatie
that
each
of the
petitioners
assertions
was
given
consideration however the law did not allow the result they sought We agree
The jurisprudence on this subj
ct does not cause us to r
ach a different
result
In particular we find Clement v Ci
ry ofLake Charles 201
703 La App
0
3 Cit l 2
l0 S2 So
8
3d 1054 distinguishable Accordingly the judgment of the
district court is affirmed
This opinion is issued in compliance with Uniform
16 l B
Rules Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2
ainst the plaintiffs
a
AFFIRMED
4
Appeal costs ar ass
ssed